The EPA RADNET Acknowledged through out their system readings above background due to Fukishima. They asked for more monitoring during this time. Every station reported above background during the Fukishima event. Readings I believe you are having now, I believe have a high probability of being caused by rain events. I believe you should ask your operators to check on these and see if it is so during large rain events. These were proven using gamma tracers around Oak Ridge. I am not believing all these high readings in random places are due to nuclear releases caused by man. They may be just natural phenomena. You are correct in the Fukishima and Chernobyl accounts and EPA radiation stations back that up. Thanks for the response and your website. I think it can be useful during events and may even find releases that people are not aware of. I also ask that you also consider natural phenomena or make a qualifying statement that some high back ground readings may come from natural phenomena. Thanks, The ALWAYS comment was for gamma tracers around Oak Ridge TN and yes they were ALWAYS related back to rain events when the background went high.

•How did EPA respond?EPA’s RadNet system detected nothing unusual in the first week after the Fukushima accident. During this time, EPA deployed additional portable air monitors in Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho and two U.S. Pacific Territories. The RadNet system went on an emergency schedule, with accelerated sampling and analysis of precipitation, drinking water and milk. After a thorough data review showing declining radiation levels in these samples, EPA returned to the routine RadNet sampling and analysis schedule for precipitation, drinking water and milk on May 3, 2011. On March 18, 2011, the RadNet air monitor in Hawaii detected very low levels of iodine-131 in real-time. Iodine-131 is a radionuclide that would be expected from the Fukushima nuclear incident. During the rest of March and April, laboratory analyses of RadNet samples collected throughout the U.S. detected very low amounts of iodine-131 and other radionuclides expected following a nuclear incident. All of the radionuclides detected in the U.S. from Japan were far below levels of public health concern. No protective actions were needed in the U.S. or its Pacific Territories. After a thorough review of all the sampling and monitoring results showed declining levels of radiation from Japan, RadNet returned to a routine sampling schedule on May 3, 2011. Here is the EPA site there are stations here you may want to incorporate in your system. . http://www.epa.gov/radnet/near-real-tim ... data-state

@normanmiller1 - There is much public record of the fact that many of the EPA radiation monitoring sites were conveniently taken offline for maintenance as the original Fukushima plume passed over the United States. This is the same offline pattern we continue to see in many of the EPA RadNet stations when there seem to be problems reported at either U.S. nuclear plants or for example the WIPP site during that original event. Furthermore, the "SAFE" government level of this dirty bomb type radiation contamination in our food & water has been raised since the Fukushima accident.

You can try to persuade other users on here that the EPA is doing everything possible to protect us, but many experts disagree. Arnie Gundersen from http://www.fairewinds.org/ is just one of those experts and he continues to represent the concerned public in court cases against the EPA's lack of responsibility & what many believe is the corporate nuclear industries hidden profit before safety model.

@normanmiller1 - While I believe the EPA could do a much better job, I do appreciate what they do. In fact, as I type this right now I see a pattern of elevated radiation from Nebraska to Illinois and there is no rain on the radar. While I am not sure what the source of the radiation is from, it is a concern natural or not. As a caution, I will not go for a walk outside tonight.

In your previous posts you talk as if natural radiation is not a concern. Am I correct in that statement? If so, I would point out that the EPA lists radon (natural radiation) the number one leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers so obviously even natural radiation sources should be taken as a concern.

True on radon. Even low amounts slightly above EPA limits can cause significant chances for lung cancer, especially for smokers because of a synergistic effect. Here is a radon site that shows probability of cancer.http://www.aair.com/SimpleTerms_5_Health.html There are also problems of people surveying out of rad areas on rainy days because certain clothing acts like radon magnets. The biggest radon spikes I have seen were about 1/2 to 2 hours after rain events. Buildings are remediated or engineered to reduce the radon levels. People could choose to not go outside after a heavy rain to cut down on radon exposure. Your site could help in that if you find a significant pattern based on phenomena like rain. I have seen this and you can confirm it or not. Thanks,

@normanmiller1 - I have confirmed for myself (using my equipment) that radiation levels are likely to rise before, during and shortly after a rain storm. I have also confirmed for myself that when snow starts to melt away, radiation levels often rise. They could have been caused by radon radiation (natural) or maybe not, I do not know. Testing to figure out what exact isotopes are being seen takes so long to do, I just assume all radiation being detected is the man-made stuff. There is also a pattern of high radiation often in the jetstream. We need to understand that the Fukushima accident/problem is STILL ONGOING!

Water shields radiation and knowing that, it makes so much sense that when rain or snow starts to evaporate radiation levels often increase.

Yes water shields the radiation , however another contribution is that the water saturates the ground quickly and pushes out the radon. I think it is a dis service to assume that radiation detected by the monitors in your system are all man made. The warnings on your site then can be misleading. Like I said I think your site can be a very valuable asset, but to overstate the radiation I think may unnecessarily alarm a layman in this. All prior releases , Above ground nuclear tests, Chernobyl, Fukishima etc do contribute to a annual dose that everyone receives, I agree all are on going but are decaying away in time. I admit I do not know all the answers but I think a good discussion with ideas and admitting short comings and benefits is good. I would definitely rather have your system in place to help in case there is a problem. The background will not be significant in case of a Improvised nuclear device, significant nuclear power plant problem etc. Your system can help in problems such as these.Thank you.

I have read your posts and the bottom line is that you miss what NETC is tracking. We acknowledge that rain, wind, and many other conditions change the readings, that is exactly what we look for at each station. Every station has a background radiation range, this is calculated every night by our NETC server. When the current radiation level falls below that level it is green RADCON-1 level and stay green until it exceeds one standard deviation of all radiation levels at that station for a 3 month period. When the radiation level goes above the range then Radcon: 2, 3, 4, and 5 occur. So as you can see, NETC tracks radiation of all kinds and creates graphs and alerts base on the information that is available. I agree, better Geiger Counters, would give us more information, but we a grateful for the information that we are receiving and to the people that maintain these sites. If you have anyway that you can get more people involved to collect the data you think we need, I will listen.Harlan, Netc.com President.

Netc has incorporated much of the EPA data from its RadNet real time air monitors. On the public page stations that start w/ ID #4 are EPA beta monitors, and on the chart members page you can also find more stations that start with ID #5, which report EPA gamma range 5 data. Up to five years worth of EPA data can be simply pulled up an viewed on a graph for chart members. I really don't know how the brilliant programmer for netc does this, because on the EPA site only 400 records can be retrieved at one time for each station, and it's tediously slow, so getting five years of data takes forever.

I agree that netc should do more to explain how natural sources can cause background readings to change. I learned about radon washout on this forum, but it took some digging, and since then I've educated myself about the subject.

@ammdb - Thank you for your reply. The forum was created in the beginning to aid users in retrieving information that has already been discussed previously. It was also created to keep the staff from having to answer the same questions over and over again. Everything people need to answer most all of their questions about how NETC works and radiation can be found within the forum, as you have already mentioned. If people don't care enough about digging a little, I don't feel my time is worth wasting repeating information previously mentioned. I have donated much time to further NETC since its beginning. My time donated is nothing compared to the programmer and the time and costs from Harlan/President to build/maintain it.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum